Cutie pants? This guy the epitome of what everyone thought Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend would be. Maybe Adam could produce a biopic titled, “Beta Males and the Progressive Chicks Who Dig Them”.

Anyway, here are some pictures of Sandra and Adam frolicking in typical ghetto places like Spain and Italy:

The caption that Adam added to one of the Barcelona pics, “Pretty drunk”. Is this the part where I’m supposed to pay for your condoms, Adam? You know, because traveling between L.A., D.C., and New York, and vacationing in Barcelona, Italy, etc., is pretty darned expensive. I get it. Did you piss off your uber-wealthy parents to get cut off from your trust fund? You and Sandra must need some government subsidies. Idea: mock hearing. Brilliant!

Anyway, on to Adam’s “typical Democrat family”. The term BIll O’Reilly used to describe Bill Mutterperl is “Democratic stalwart”. However, as soon as I heard his name in a story about Sandra Fluke, I almost choked, due to my sudden epiphany. Why? Because anyone familiar with Boston and New York political history knows about the wealthy Mutterperl family’s long tradition of supporting the typical Jewish variant of socialism. Bill Mutterperl’s family are much more than Democratic stalwarts.

I’ll let Woody Allen give you the basic overview:

(Transcript of the video clip: “What’s your name… Allison… You’re like New York Jewish, left-wing, intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, socialist summer camps and the father with the Ben Shahn drawings, really strike-oriented. Stop me before I make a complete imbecile of myself… No, that was wonderful! I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype.”)

Allen’s description probably describes Adam’s childhood, right down to the Ben Shahndrawings. I wonder if Adam has ever been to a kibbutz.

Traditions of charity inculcated in their children by a New York couple, who recently celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary, are being perpetuated in their honor by the children who have established a Sol and Susanne Mutterperl Scholarship Endowment Fund at Brandeis University.

Honoring the 50th wedding anniversary of Mr. and Mrs. Sol Mutterperl,the endowment fund has been established by means of a substantial initial grant which will be augmented from time to time.

The initial grant was made by the children through the Mutterperl Foundation, Inc., which was organized in December, 1951, by Raphael Mutterperl: his brother, Martin Mutterperl, and their sister’s husband, Ludwig S. Buckhardt. for the purpose of fostering the philanthropic ideals of their parents.

President of the Foundation is Raphael Mutterperl, prominent New Bedford (Mass.) manufacturer.

Since Sol is credited with creating the women’s handbag market, and was a wealthy manufacturer and proprietor of those goods, he and his wife, Susanne, lived at 22 Central Park West in Manhattan for a time, and then at 350 Central Park West. Not too shabby, Mutterperl! Sol was also supportive of unions and was the Director of the United Jewish Appeal (now The Jewish Federations of North America) a Jewish “social” organization. From the JFNA website:

The Federation movement, collectively among the top 10 charities on the continent, protects and enhances the well-being of Jews worldwide through the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), tzedakah (charity and social justice) and Torah (Jewish learning).

Bill is a partner in Reed Smith’s Financial Industry Group. He specializes in providing high level counseling to CEO’s, General Counsel, Boards of Directors and members of senior management of major financial institutions.

As the former Vice Chairman of The PNC Financial Services Group, he held management responsibilities for certain PNC staff functions, including legal, compliance, legislative affairs and media relations, and he was responsible for implementing best practices for corporate governance. He served on several senior management committees, including Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Re-Engineering and Consumer affairs, and also served as management liaison to a special ad hoc committee of the Board of Directors dealing with regulatory affairs and corporate governance. He also served as a PNC representative on the Board of Directors of BlackRock Investment Management, one of the largest investment management firms in the world.

Bill also had a distinguished 25-year career at FleetBoston Financial Corp. where he served as its Executive Vice President and General Counsel world-wide, responsible for all legal affairs of the company.

In addition, Bill served as Executive Director of the Independent Oversight Board for Arthur Andersen, headed by formerFederal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. The other members of the Independent Oversight Board included current and former CEO’s of major U.S. companies. Bill advised the Board on proposed best corporate governance practices to be adopted by Andresen in the wake of governmental investigations and criticisms of that firm.

In private practice, Bill was a partner in the business law division of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels in Boston,specializing in corporate governance issues. He began his legal career at the law firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

Bill has also made nearly $90,000 in personal donations to Dems and their allies in the past 10 years, according to OpenSecrets.org. Check out the awesome Daddy Warbucks screenshots:

Adam’s mother is Nancy Mutterperl. According to the California Secretary of State, she’s involved with a company operating in Beverly Hills, CA as Charlotte Lu, LLC. They specialize in jewelry that runs from $300, to nearly $4000. Their website has a brief bio of Nancy, listing her role as “Business Development and Display“:

Raised in West Haven, Connecticut, Nancy Mutterperl enjoyed studying art history in college, but it was her love of jewelry that led to her earning certificates from the Gemological Institute of America. While she was a stay-at-home mom, Nancy began creating her own jewelry pieces that were sold in retail stores and catalogs. Nancy’s experience with gemstones gives her the edge for selecting beautiful stones for Charlotte Lu. Nancy is married, has two sons and resides in both Manhattan and Beverly Hills.

Stay-at-home mom, indeed. You know, typical, bi-coastal, “stalwarty” kind of stuff in the Mutterperl family. I wonder if Adam lives with mom here in Beverly Hills. From the looks of Adam’s audition video above, it’s safe to assume that mom imparted some of the “art history” stuff that she enjoyed in college, unto her son.

In summary (with bold for emphatic inflection): Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old leftistactivist, attending Georgetown University, whom the Dems tried to inject, via non-sequitur, into Issa’s hearing about Obamacare’s encroachment upon religious freedoms, protected by the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment. Her boyfriend, Adam Mutterperl, is the son of one of the mostwell-connected leftist Jewish families on the East Coast (add the West Coast to that, apparently), with ties to neo-Marxist Brandeis University as decades old donors… and whose father, Bill Mutterperl, worked directly for Paul Volcker, one of Obama’s pals, advisors, and Keynesian “stimulus” bill architects. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that this just boils down to a poor girl needing us to “subsidize” her birth control. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

We’re talking Sgt. Schultz levels of ignorance and avoidance if you buy that load of schmutz.

Some have claimed that Sandra’s reps (Anita Dunn’s PR firm – Anita’s the Mao lover, and former Obama Communications Director) are lying about the Mutterperl “boyfriend”. I’ve posted the Facebook photos, above, of them, that are dated, and go back a few years – but you never see them kiss in their photos. To me, it’s obvious that she’s in bed with him, literally, or figuratively. Either way, Sandra’s connection to this particular Jewish-American socialist dynasty is a “little” secret that they don’t want you to know. Which begs the question… if you’re so connected to the Mutterperl family, Sandra, why not go to Brandeis, a school much more aligned with your worldview, instead of Georgetown University, a Catholic Jesuit school? Are you admitting that a Christian school is better than a neo-Marxist school, or is there some other agenda? Now *that’s* funny when you think about it.

Based on all this random connectedness, I’d love it if Miss Fluke would sue Georgetown for “subsidized” birth control. The Georgetown lawyers would have a field day with discovery. Do it, Sandra. I dare you.

Oh, as a complete aside, check out Adam’s grandpappy, Martin Mutterperl, hanging out with Cass Sunstein’s, (another Obama appointee, Regulatory Czarina, and overall radical leftist) great-uncle, Alexander Cass Sunstein, and Samuel “Subway Sam” Rosoff, the guy who killed one of his detractors over a labor union spat, in Palm Beach back in 1965, at the Ambassador Hotel (see: photo below). Purely coincidence, I’m sure, since they’re all associated with Marxists, socialists, and trade-unionists of Eastern-European, Jewish, descent. There are some other interesting names in this list. Can you spot them?! Just kidding. Move along. Nothing to see here, hobbits.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online

POSTED AT 11:00 AM ON MARCH 13, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound liketolerance to you? A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the leasttolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects

9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive

8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows

5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends

4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter. I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements. I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life. Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing. I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too. It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals. While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative? Michael Medvedsays they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine. Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out. They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice. The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.